This stuff ties in very messily too with upcoming enhancements... At what point do we let people chop off limbs to replace them with *better* things? (We're mostly not there yet, but we're clearly on a path to it. Lot of quite old now cyberpunk fiction that simply assumes we're going to let that happen - which it hasn't, yet, but we're actually now approaching parity technically.)

I mean, someone just developed a lens replacement which is a drop-in replacement for the existing lens, 8 minute painless surgery to have 60/20 vision...

As for transabled as it is, that's pretty messy. :-/ I don't have clear thoughts on that one, other than "body image" is a very very weird thing.

From my own experience, a physical limitation has the potential to turn your life around, but you can end up fine in the end although things will be different forever, so if you hate your current life for instance, I guess there is a decent chance you'll be happier in the end with an arm chopped off. It could be a 'rebirth' for you, in a way.

Still though, what helps me through is the idea of being screwed by bad luck and making it work against the odds anyway.
If you intentionally chop it off yourself, there's no bad luck so I'd have to blame myself on every tough monent, rather than faith.

I can't see it help anyone like this, really.

I would like to come out fully in support of the transabled. People who don't feel the need to hack off their limbs are sooooooo fucking privileged! Normal people make me sick. Thank god there's none on this site.

I don'tseek to determine how other people live their lives. Especially when it doesn't impact others.

When it comes to devices to improve us ( transhumanism ) - looking at examples like the blade runner, he has artificial legs which make him one of the fastest runners in the world; but we usually only make tech to improve disabled people's performance to a 'normal' level (whatever normal is) We are getting close to being to go super-normal.

Yet we usually avoid implants, as opposed to wearable technology - like glasses, which improve my eye sight - or false teeth, which are pretty handy for the chewing...

It's good that you don't seek to tell people how to live their lives, ora. Nevertheless, on an academic level, there are different attitudes one could take toward people experiencing their symptoms.

Should we, for example, say, hmm -- this might possibly be a mental illness; we should make resources available to them, should they desire to be cured. (Up to them, of course). Should we say, this is actually their identity -- we should start having hospitals offer elective amputations. To do both of those things would be a little incoherent (if we think it is an unfortunate condition that we should help cure, we probably don't want to help somebody permanently disable their body because they are suffering from it; etc.).

Which should it be? Or perhaps neither?

Surely to do both would be empowering, like lettig a person hear both sides of the debate and making up their own mind.

I don't know anyone who is transabled, i can't speak for their experiences; or the medical care they deserve.

I would ask, do they have a condition recoginised by the current DSM? I know homosexuality and transgender-ism (sp?) were/are considered mental illnesses long before they started to become socially acceptable

That is, they were common enough and public enough that doctors specialising in the area of mental health knew about them. Is that the case with transabl-ism?

Removing Homosexuality from the DSM was really the first big step toward including homosexuals as part of the "normal" human experience. I think at this point transsexualism is only included inasmuch as it creates cognitive dissonance and stress - i.e. what is treated is the feelings related to being transsexual, not actually being transsexual. I think just like "heterosexual reparative therapy", legitimate psychiatry doesn't believe that you can "cure" transexuals of being transexual.

So I would guess that a psychiatrist would handle a transable patient similarly - no psychiatrist is going to tell a transsexual that hormonal and surgical solutions are the correct solutions, although they might present it as an option. I guess they'd handle the therapy similarly, but the fact that no surgical options exist at this point - ethical surgeons would definitely call cutting off a perfectly serviceable arm as "doing harm" - means that they wouldn't present following through on the feelings as an option.

Transabled is not a real word. There is no "transition" or "transformation" from one thing to a different thing. It is body mod mutilators trying to normalize their disabling behavior through language. Should "normal" people be called cis-abled?

@Jeff I'll bet they insist on it. And it would be "normal" people including "normally" DISabled people - if you were born without an arm, or lost it in an accident, you'd be cis-abled.

Which, to me, seems weird. Of course, I really don't understand body mutilators, including the tattooing that has become so common. I get small changes - pierced ears (I had one in 1981, before it was common, but just the one), a small tattoo or two that signify some important emotional event - but facial piercings, neck and face tattoos, sleeves, etc - I just don't get it.

Am I cis-bodyimaged ?

Tattooing is not disabling, it is treating the skin as a canvas, and creating a piece of art ( or advertising ) Expression in a semi- permanent form, which you carry with you.

I don't get it either, i'm not interested in the cost, nor the pain, but mostly the cost. However i wouldn't class it with other forms of body modding. They may indeed be more forms of 3 sculpture, but at present they are mostly rather primitive ( at least compared to ink, modern tattoos can be pretty good, and safe )

But body modding which disables, because you feel uncomfortable in your own body is more an expression of self, than an expression of art. If that distinction makes sense.

I'd be much more comfortable with artistic disfiguration. Just because i'm not into it, doesn't mean i think it should be banned. ( and i'd be more likely to want a super body than a disabled one... )

Inking one's skin is definitely a body modification. Not even a question.

I'm not questioning what category you are putting things into.

I am stating a clear difference in the qualities of modding for artistic reasons and modding for psychological ones.

Going back to this:
"- ethical surgeons would definitely call cutting off a perfectly serviceable arm as "doing harm" -"

Would it be possible to give the arm to someone who is missing one and wants one (which, I guess, you could then call trans-abled as well), or is that impossible for now. If it is possible, at least the arm doesn't go to waste.

@steephie - AFAIK and IANATransplantSurgeon - no. Re-attaching a limb requires that the nerves be freshly cut and ready for reattachment - besides the problems with rejection. And a re-attached limb will never be fully enabled. New advances in prosthetics is definitely the way to go here.

This is just wrong..

First of all, do not link National Post. Ever. It's tabloid garbage.

Second, the only people making a "next big thing" out of this are the right-wing tabloid media. You won't find it anywhere else.

Third, said right-wing tabloid media is doing this in reaction to the increasing normalization of trans sexuality. Nobody else is pushing it.

If you want to read an actual academic paper about body integrity identity disorder or body dysmorphic disorder without all the sensationalism and bullshit (seriously, National Post?), read this:

http://www.academia.edu/6145000/Morality_Work_Among_the_Transabled

Bravo for this brave post Semck.

And for the record...I need you to all know that....and this is very difficult to say....well....from about the age of 10...even though I was born with pale flesh, such that I have always been labelled a Cauasian....I have...damn this is hard...I have always self-identified with the Negro population. I don't know why...it's difficult to understand. Especially since my affiliation is with a population of dark-skinned persons from a era long past (when "Negro" WAS the term of choice...).

Not only am I a "white" (what a vile fucking term that is...I NEVER was white, you douches...)....not only am I considered "white" when in reality I *know* for certain that I am Negro....but I am also a man out of time. I *know* that this is not the age and time that I was to be born in. I was supposed to be born decades ago.

So....so from here on out, I will require that ALL of you acknowledge me as one of the few Negroes on Webdiplomacy. Please do NOT insult me by offering me points, and telling me you will help me win a game because you know it is more difficult for me. I pretty fucking capable of succeeding on my own, despite my affliction of appearance.

Anyway....

Wow...I can't tell you how much of a relief it is to tell you all this.

I AM A NEGRO.

There...I said it. I've always known it....but was afraid to say.

If you don't believe me....well....fucking haters hate...and I'll pop a cap in your ass as sure as I'll piss on you.

Jerk

Typical conservative asshole. I bear my soul...as painful as it was...about my TRUE identity...and you mock me???

Jeff Kuta....you are a heartless piece of shit. I wish a painful death upon you. You don'tt deserve to share the oxygen I breath, for all the suffering that I have endured these past thirty years of hiding my true identity.

Fuck you.

Just because you are a narrow-minded simpleton that doesn't understand doesn't mean you have the right judge me, asshole.

Trans-Identity may be a real thing. Nothing to joke about.

I don't think "transabled" even works as a term in the way people are wanting to use it here.

"transgender" works quite well to describe this area because the root meanings of 'trans', as in meaning 'across' or 'beyond' speak both to:
a) the socially constructed nature of gender
b) the way in which transgender-identifying people see themselves outside of the traditional gender role expectations tied to their sex.

"transabled" does not produce the same logics, or help identify the various different conditions posters here are trying to shoehorn/prescribe on the term. Deliberately disabling yourself, and removing functions of your body, does not 'trans' your 'abilities', it quite literally 'disables' them: so the term 'disabled' may be more appropriate than ever. You'd also have to question the extent to which disabilites are socially constructed:

a) deafness may be a partially socially constructed disability because our species prioritises verbal language/communication, whereas if we prioritised sign, symbol or written language, the notion that deafness was a disability might be more muted.
b) whereas it would be harder to argue how having no limbs on your body is a socially constructed disability, when it clearly limits body functionality.

Some have also confused this issue with the idea of technological replacements, i.e., replacing limbs with bionic replacements...but this, again, is a red herring. This is not 'trans', it is replacement, improvement perhaps, but replacing the same likeness, whether improved or not. Transgender is specifically not about replacing the same or improving the same.

I believe transhumanism is exactly that trans(ition) to a post-human condition. A condition where limbs are replaced by something better/more useful ( for certain social context of what is useful ) Where brains are enhanced by computers connecting them with an internet. Where humans have edited their DNA to give them a wide variety of difference abilities...

Very much an end to the human race, particularily genetically, if our retro-virus gene-theraphy ever gets off the ground.

@wjessop, i feel your arguement is too semantic.

Who cares what the words 'trans' means, this is about identity and expression.

Should we as a society recognise people's identity and support their efforts to surgically express that identity.

It is very much the same thing.

@orathaic "who cares what [a word] means, this is about [...] expression."

You're presenting a false logic there.

To underline my first point in another way:
There may be some/minimal similarities between the issues facing transgender individuals and this separate but confused debate about a variety of other different body-related subjects, such as "transabled"; body enhancements; human-cyborg configurations; modern medicine. But I don't think it's particularly helpful or inciteful to discuss these other things in relation to or as a natural product of transgender identity.

I was quite supportive about your earlier comments in this thread and pleased to read them but I can't agree with your opinion (which you seem to present as fact) that all of these things are "very much the same". I think that's actually slightly ignorant to the particularities of the transgender situation.

Seriously - who give s flying f*** about "trans- fill-in-the-blank" assholes. Live your f*ing life, and stop feeling the need to publicize your perverse deviancy. Nobody cares, except for those that are too afraid of the political backlash of publicly confessing that they don't care.

I understand the concept of wanting to artificially improve your body, such as replacing your arm with a bionic one, but the idea that you should remove an arm or similar appendage because it "doesn't fit" seems to me more of a mental illness. Why should we normalize things that will absolutely cause harm to someone? If someone in a mental hospital thought they could fly and jumped off the building, would you not try to stop that person?